Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id m2zkpzsroq.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> I think it's better to keep it working as a textual substitution.
> That poses the least risk of breaking scripts that work today ---
> who's to say that somebody might not be relying on the substitution
> happening someplace else than CREATE FUNCTION's shlib string?

Fair enough, I suppose.  So +1 from me, FWIW.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling